The Role of Neuroglia in Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Disruptive Behavior: A Broad Review of Current Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers a compelling dataset and an authoritative discussion regarding the link between early-life events, such as trauma, and their long-term effects. Nonetheless, a minor revision is necessary to address critical limitations. Specifically, there is no introduction, the author must write a few words before the topics to better establish the study's theoretical position and clearly define its unique significance within the existing body of research.

Another important addiction to the article would be some illustration for example in each topic, or specially synthetizing and giving a whole view of article idea in the conclusion.

Author Response

Comments 1: 

Specifically, there is no introduction, the author must write a few words before the topics to better establish the study's theoretical position and clearly define its unique significance within the existing body of research.

Another important addiction to the article would be some illustration for example in each topic, or specially synthetizing and giving a whole view of article idea in the conclusion.

Answer 1:  We would like to thank the reviewer. The Introduction section has been completed, and summary tables related to key points have been added at the end of some sections. Also section 8 and 9 were added for in order to enlight this comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the authors provided comprehensive evidence of the role of neuroglia in neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders. The main manuscript is written in a narrative style and the content is well organised. However, it is difficult for readers to grasp at first glance. Some summary figures should be added under a major subheading. If the authors cannot do this, at least a conclusive figure should be added.

Author Response

Comments 1 : In this study, the authors provided comprehensive evidence of the role of neuroglia in neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders. The main manuscript is written in a narrative style and the content is well organised. However, it is difficult for readers to grasp at first glance. Some summary figures should be added under a major subheading. If the authors cannot do this, at least a conclusive figure should be added.

Answer 1: We would like to thank the reviewer, summary tables have been added at the end of each section.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a comprehensive review of the diversity and functional complexity of glial cells in the nervous system, covering various types such as astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, microglia and NG2 glia. The authors thoroughly discuss the roles of these cells in neural network function, synaptic regulation, metabolic support, immune surveillance, and disease pathogenesis. The inclusion of research findings offers readers a well-rounded perspective. The content is rich and has certain academic value, but the clarity, relevance and logic need to be improved. There are some questions that the authors need to address.

 

1. At present, the manuscript is long and the information in each section is piled up, so it should be appropriately streamlined. Charts should be used exclusively for content that is easier to present. For example, the descriptions of different gene regulatory models are redundant, and it is recommended to keep only representative studies and summarize the rest into tables to improve readability. Repetitive content in the context should be removed or explained in a centralized manner. For example, the explanation of the physiological functions of glial cells. Content that deviates from the topic of the article should be deleted. For example, some of the content in the section titled “Tic Disorders and Neuroglia”.

 

2. Modify the title to make it more straightforward.

 

3. It is suggested to add a cross-disease comparative analysis to systematically sort out the common and differentiated glial cell pathological mechanisms (such as inflammatory factor, synaptic pruning abnormalities, myelin sheath changes, etc.) in different diseases, so as to highlight the integration value of the review.

 

4. Rearrange the presentation structure for each condition. For each condition (ASD, ID, ADHD, DMDD, etc.). It is best to adopt a consistent presentation structure, such as: (a) Key clinical/epidemiological points (very brief); (b) Major neuroglia-related findings (astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, NG2, if applicable); (c) Involved mechanisms and pathways, etc. In particular, the section on “Tic Disorders and Neuroglia” becomes logically disjointed, containing numerous off-topic elements.

Author Response

Comment 1:

At present, the manuscript is long and the information in each section is piled up, so it should be appropriately streamlined. Charts should be used exclusively for content that is easier to present. For example, the descriptions of different gene regulatory models are redundant, and it is recommended to keep only representative studies and summarize the rest into tables to improve readability. Repetitive content in the context should be removed or explained in a centralized manner. For example, the explanation of the physiological functions of glial cells. Content that deviates from the topic of the article should be deleted. For example, some of the content in the section titled “Tic Disorders and Neuroglia”.

Answer 1:

We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions. Redundant content has been removed, and the manuscript has been streamlined. Summary tables have been added at the end of each section. In addition, content not directly related to the topic has been eliminated.

Comment 2: 

Modify the title to make it more straightforward.

Answer 2:

We thank to reviewer for this comment. The title was changed as " The Role of Neuroglia in Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Disruptive Behavior: A Broad Review of Current
Literature"

Comment 3: 

It is suggested to add a cross-disease comparative analysis to systematically sort out the common and differentiated glial cell pathological mechanisms (such as inflammatory factor, synaptic pruning abnormalities, myelin sheath changes, etc.) in different diseases, so as to highlight the integration value of the review.

Answer 3:

We thank to reviewer. Comperative analysis section added at the end of the manuscript for integration of the data.

Comment 4:

Rearrange the presentation structure for each condition. For each condition (ASD, ID, ADHD, DMDD, etc.). It is best to adopt a consistent presentation structure, such as: (a) Key clinical/epidemiological points (very brief); (b) Major neuroglia-related findings (astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, NG2, if applicable); (c) Involved mechanisms and pathways, etc. In particular, the section on “Tic Disorders and Neuroglia” becomes logically disjointed, containing numerous off-topic elements.

Answer 4:

We thank the reviewer for their comments. Although each subsection in the study was not originally divided strictly into separate topics (e.g., epidemiology, relation to glial function), the manuscript has been reorganized in line with the reviewer’s suggestions. In the section on Tic Disorders and Neuroglia, all sentences unrelated to the topic have been removed, and the manuscript was carefully reviewed to simplify other sections as well, thereby bringing it into the format requested by the reviewer.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a narrative review of the involvement of neuroglia in disruptive behavior and neurodevelopmental disorders. Despite the growing importance of this topic in the context of neuroscience, the paper has notable academic and structural shortcomings. Most notably, it shows obvious signs of AI-generated or AI-assisted writing that lacks the necessary critical analysis, originality, and scholarly sophistication required of a peer-reviewed submission. The paper is marked by excessive repetition, vague generalizations, poor structure, and little added value beyond the summary of established facts.

1. The text has signature characteristics of AI-generated writing: repetitive sentence structures, vague transitions, and formulaic paragraph patterns. The tone and level of complexity remain largely unchanged throughout sections, and the style is not as nuanced and perceptive as what is expected from professionally written work.

2. The manuscript lacks a unifying argument, new hypothesis, or conceptual integration. It reads more like a series of unrelated summaries than an integrated scholarly review.

3. Important terms and results are recycled across several disorder sections (for example, synaptic pruning, glial inflammation, glutamate imbalance), indicating that text blocks were rewritten and reused without actual synthesis.

4. The referencing method is a concern. Citations are clustered at the end of paragraphs with no clear attribution to specific claims. This detracts from credibility and suggests a possible overdependence on automated citation tools.

5. There are some statements that are doubtful or unproven, e.g., excessively detailed molecular pathways are reported without due context or consideration of limitations.

6. The review fails to address the conflicting findings in the literature or provide a critical evaluation of the studies cited. A good review should highlight controversial topics, methodological limitations, or remaining questions.

7. Lack of visual or structural information organization. Dense blocks of text present findings with no tables, diagrams, or conceptual models to lead the reader through complicated material.

8. The manuscript contains many minor but recurring formatting and typographical errors (e.g., omission of letters in "attention-deficit"), also indicating the use of unedited AI-generated material.

9. The abstract is unsubstantive and resembles a paraphrased title rather than a brief summary of findings and conclusions. It fails to establish the scope, significance, or results of the review.

10. The writing is too passive and general, with many statements beginning with "It has been shown that…" or "Recent studies suggest…," without actual attribution. This detracts from the strength of the writing and accountability.

11. The paper has minimal contribution to the development of the field. In spite of the general subject, it does not present novel frameworks, integrated models, or clinical implications extending beyond a summary of published findings.

Author Response

Comment 1:

The text has signature characteristics of AI-generated writing: repetitive sentence structures, vague transitions, and formulaic paragraph patterns. The tone and level of complexity remain largely unchanged throughout sections, and the style is not as nuanced and perceptive as what is expected from professionally written work.

Answer 1:

We thank to reviewer for clearify the situation. AI was used solely for language translation in the manuscript, and this information has been added to the Acknowledgements section as "During the preparation of this study, the author(s) used DeepL for the purposes of language editing and translation." Other languistic improvement has been done by section authors.

Comment 2:

 The manuscript lacks a unifying argument, new hypothesis, or conceptual integration. It reads more like a series of unrelated summaries than an integrated scholarly review.

Answer 2:

We thank for this comment. The aim of this study is to provide the reader with comprehensive information on the current literature while also contributing to the enhancement of their knowledge on the subject. To both summarize the topic and compare various disorders, Section 8 has been added. More constructive feedback will further contribute to the improvement of the manuscript.

Comment 3:

Important terms and results are recycled across several disorder sections (for example, synaptic pruning, glial inflammation, glutamate imbalance), indicating that text blocks were rewritten and reused without actual synthesis.

Answer 3:

We thank to reviewer for this comment. We agree that some terms (e.g., synaptic pruning, glial inflammation, glutamate imbalance) were repeated across sections without sufficient synthesis. These have now been condensed and reorganized, with emphasis on disease-specific differences. Comparative analyses have been integrated into a dedicated section to reduce redundancy.

Comment 4:

The referencing method is a concern. Citations are clustered at the end of paragraphs with no clear attribution to specific claims. This detracts from credibility and suggests a possible overdependence on automated citation tools

Answer 4:

We appreciate the concern. As much as we can, the citation style has been corrected so that references are now attributed directly to specific claims rather than clustered at the end of paragraphs.

Comment 5:

There are some statements that are doubtful or unproven, e.g., excessively detailed molecular pathways are reported without due context or consideration of limitations.

Answer 5:

We thank to reviewer. Excessively detailed molecular descriptions have been shortened, and more balanced contextualization has been provided. Where evidence is still preliminary or controversial, limitations have been added at the end of the manuscript. Therefore, these sections have been simplified and removed, and only certain parts were retained where they served the purpose of contextualizing the topic.

Comment 6:

The review fails to address the conflicting findings in the literature or provide a critical evaluation of the studies cited. A good review should highlight controversial topics, methodological limitations, or remaining questions

Answer 6:

Thank for the reviewer's suggestion. The revised manuscript explicitly addresses conflicting findings and methodological limitations in the literature in section 9.

Comment 7:

Lack of visual or structural information organization. Dense blocks of text present findings with no tables, diagrams, or conceptual models to lead the reader through complicated material.

Answer 7:

We thank to the  reviewer. Summary tables are relevant to topics have been added in each related section.

Comment 8:

The manuscript contains many minor but recurring formatting and typographical errors (e.g., omission of letters in "attention-deficit"), also indicating the use of unedited AI-generated material.

Answer 8:

We sincerely thank the reviewer. All typographical and formatting issues (including the omission of letters in terms such as “attention-deficit”) have been corrected through proofreading. The errors as your warn indicated in the references are not attributable to the authors.

Comment 9:

 The abstract is unsubstantive and resembles a paraphrased title rather than a brief summary of findings and conclusions. It fails to establish the scope, significance, or results of the review.

Answer 9:

The abstract has been rewritten to more clearly reflect the scope, significance, and key conclusions of the review.

Comment 10:

The writing is too passive and general, with many statements beginning with "It has been shown that…" or "Recent studies suggest…," without actual attribution. This detracts from the strength of the writing and accountability.

Answer 10:

Thanks to reviewer. We have reduced the frequency of vague statements such as “It has been shown that…” by incorporating precise attributions to specific studies.

Comment 11:

The paper has minimal contribution to the development of the field. In spite of the general subject, it does not present novel frameworks, integrated models, or clinical implications extending beyond a summary of published findings.

Answer 11:

Thank you to reviewer for this valuable comment. For strengthened the discussion of clinical implication we added section 9: Limitations and Future Directions. And for explane the integrated models we also added section 8: Comperative Analysis. Additionally, to make the discussion more concise, we have shortened a significant portion of the text and focused more extensively on glial functional roles. We believe these additions enhance the originality and relevance of the review.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all my concerns.

Author Response

Thank you for your contributions and valuable suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am grateful for the revisions undertaken; nevertheless, the manuscript still does not meet the standards required for publication. It remains a collection of summaries that lacks an unifying framework or novel synthesis. The new comparative section is ill-organized, and the paper fails to address conflicting results or confront methodological limitations.

Many statements are either unclear or poorly referenced, and the citation style is still irregular. The visual aids are inconsistently presented, with missing tables and a lack of an integrative model. Typographical errors and formatting inconsistencies persist, and the writing may show features typical of AI-generated text, even though only translation software was acknowledged.

Overall, the manuscript has limited novelty and would require substantial revisions regarding structure, writing quality, and conceptual clarity. Thus, I suggest its rejection.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback. We have implemented the revisions to the best of our ability in accordance with your suggestions, and we respectfully leave the subsequent process to the editors.